Diggs v. Balogon

United States District Court, D. Maryland

July 6, 2018

TYRONE DIGGS, Plaintiff,v.RAMON BALOGUN and SHAWN HOLLY, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THEODORE D. CHUANG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff
Tyrone Diggs, an inmate in the Maryland State Correctional
System, has filed this lawsuit against Defendant Correctional
Officers Ramon Balogun and Shawn Holly pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging violations of his rights under the First
and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Pending before the Court is Diggs's Supplemental Motion
for Default Judgment against Officer Holly, who has not filed
an Answer or otherwise responded to the Amended Complaint.
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Default
Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This
case arises out of two physical assaults committed by
correctional officers against Diggs while he was incarcerated
at Maryland Correctional Institution - Jessup
(“MCIJ”). The facts underlying this case were
detailed in this Court's prior opinion resolving a Motion
to Dismiss and Diggs's initial Motion for Default
Judgment. Diggs v. Balogun, No. TDC-15-0535, 2017 WL
4921690, at *1-2 (D. Md. Oct. 31, 2017), ECF No. 59. As
relevant here, Diggs alleges that he was physically assaulted
by Officer Balogun on February 19, 2013. After Diggs reported
the attack and filed an inmate grievance against Officer
Balogun, other inmates and prison staff began to harass him,
culminating in a physical assault by Officer Holly on April
12, 2013. The attack left Diggs with bruises to his head,
face, right finger, right arm, and right leg. Since the
attack, Diggs has also been diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”), has had difficulty
sleeping, and now takes anti-depressants and a sleep aid.

Diggs
filed a Complaint in this Court on February 24, 2015, naming
Officers Balogun[1]and Holly as defendants. On August 12,
2016, Diggs filed an Amended Complaint, asserting that his
rights under the First and Eighth Amendments had been
violated. Although he was properly served, Officer Holly
failed to respond to either the Complaint or Amended
Complaint, prompting Diggs to file his first Motion for
Default Judgment.

On
October 31, 2017, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion,
granting the motion in part. The Court found that Diggs had
established that Officer Holly had violated Diggs's First
and Eighth Amendment rights by physically assaulting him in
retaliation for his filing a complaint against Officer
Balogun. However, Diggs had not provided evidence to support
his request for damages. The Court therefore entered default
judgment against Officer Holly as to liability and granted
Diggs leave to file a second motion for default judgment
regarding damages.

DISCUSSION

The
Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment asserts that the
Court should, pursuant to its prior grant of judgment in
favor of Diggs against Officer Holly, award damages in the
amount of $80, 638.[2] Diggs has supported this claim by
submitting the following documents:

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.